justice. we are coordinating with the superior court as well. obviously they have an interest in moving forward with this. where they are not suffering the degree of cuts that the other side is having. they also have a desire to see a new facility have been in relatively short order. supervisor chu: 4 perspective, the hall of justice has often been one of the top capital needs as identified by the hall of planning. a building with significance in challenges to it. we have a public facility where we are asking people to come into that building time and again. a building that the public really does utilize. in addition to that, we do have a significant inmate population on that site. i understand that it has prioritized by hall of justice

at the top of the list for those reasons. >> the seismic issue is certainly a great concern. that is the sense of urgency in moving us to a new facility. supervisor chu: currently we have an existing lease with the new site. in terms of the option to purchase, is there a time line for that? does it have to be acted upon by eight articular time line? >> we tried to bring this into fiscal year 2012 and passed september 1. meaning we would have to negotiate with the owner to pursue a purchase and guarantee the pricing and terms of condition. subject to mutual discussion and agreement. by now we have a contractual

right that is executed awaiting board approval for a closing of escrow at a price that is certain. supervisor chu: regarding the site for the medical examiner, the first is the urgency in dealing with the hall of justice and finding locations appropriate for city functions. second is the accreditation issue. do we have any other means for sites for the medical examiner at this point? as i think about this, we have the option to exercise this purchase. are there other options on the table? >> the other options that met the need physically have been repurchased or released, were sold for other uses. so, right now there is nothing on the table as a viable plan be site available for purchase or lease, meeting sizing

requirements. of course, we are always looking at options in the marketplace, but we have nothing articular established. we have vetted a number of sites, but none of them came to this point where everything came together. pricing, timing, availability, willingness of the owner to work with us. this has all of those factors. supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor kim? supervisor kim: what is the number of the property that the city owns currently? >> each year, the apartments are required by ordinance to report to the director property as they are either under-utilized or declared surplus.

again, this is a self-reporting process. there are about two dozen surplus properties. the majority of those are strips of rights of way under the public works jurisdiction. a few of them are under the housing of office jurisdiction ordinances' from the mid-2000's. some of which are moving forward with either development for sale purposes. others are coming back to the granting department, as they did not look feasible. supervisor chu: how much property do we own? >> enterprise apartments are not required to record surplus property. i cannot speak to that. we do assist, as the real-estate arm of the city, with the puc we

have disposed of many assets. recently we have provided funding for the 525 gates project. supervisor chu: what about the properties that may sit within the square footage of what you need? >> always look at what the city owns first. especially nothing that the criteria before us today. supervisor chu: what about the two properties provided, over the number of square feet that she might need? 191 portola, can you talk about why you rejected that? for the sake of me understanding the process? and the diligence of that went into this? when we have to look into

purchasing more property, especially. >> these larger sites always get our attention in a site search. those the two particularly mentioned are really under the radar of the park department for potential jurisdictional transfer. so, we are having active discussions with public works about that. driven by neighborhood concerns, they are primarily residential in nature and provide an open space feel as undeveloped, vacant land. some of them are ideal for community gardens. others simply maintain open space. the rec and park department is being responsible to neighborhood concerns. these are not development opportunities. these are life was i-industrial opportunity in a laboratory facility. hoppsupervisor chu: these are al

they can facilities? >> yes. with the exception of onondaga, which is a converted residents used as an office and self-help for the elderly. those are the only improved properties that we have on the surplus list. supervisor chu: we had nothing else that was an interesting, warehouse-type building on the property? the process of renovating this is an incredible amount of money. i am just surprised that the city does not own anything that could not be converted after $45 million. >> i get comments from people in the community every day to that extent. it is nice to be able to say that we are thoroughly using everything that we own, with the

exception of these you, so it is good to have what the taxpayers are looking for. on the other hand it means that where we have a need, the inventory is there. we need to go out and find something else, unfortunately. supervisor chu: this is a different kind of line of discussion. can you talk about the process and actually committing to this first lease? i was not here in 2006, but it seems like a rather lonely east for a building that we were leasing for the first time. i know that we have a relationship that is traditionally the second or the third in use. but they have come to be longer. we know that that space works for us. there was arbitration work that was overturned. we have to have known that this

was a possibility. why such a long-term lease? >> unfortunately, i cannot personally speak to this. i was not here for those discussions are either. my understanding of the tenor of those discussions was that long term commitment was important to the parties involved in this issue regarding the laundry workers. i think that the board was trying to be responsive to that in terms of having five years with options. you are right, this is a bit out of the realm of 10-years. supervisor kim: regarding the potential source of sons of -- source of funds for the site, if the measure does not pass? please talk a little bit about the plan b process.

>> there is plan b and c. we have the need to address this with the office of the chief medical examiner. if the funding opportunity does not reveal itself, we would probably look at other opportunities first. if there is not capacity within the city's budget to solve this problem, we will have to try to solve it in a different way. after that we will look that repurchasing this asset. once we have ownership, we are confident that we are getting in at a base price that is competitive. so, financial risk to the city is minimized. i am not trying to say that there is not a risk, but it must be repurchased for city use, or disposed of. >> what happens to the medical

examiner's office? upo>> we restart the search. that is what we do all the time. supervisor mirkarimi: if i may make a suggestion, and i am not sure if you have space under article four, i know that in conversations with the mayor it has been important for him to find incubator space here in this city. i know that he has been talking about finding spaces that are affordable. i do not know if that has been considered. i know that four years is not an incredible amount of time, but it is an incredible amount of incubator space to have time for companies to get started here. i know that in the long term, he is interested in permanently helping manufacturing. just something that i thought

of. i am not sure if that action was explored. >> we can certainly look at those options. supervisor kim: thank you. supervisor chu: we have taken public comment? this item is before the committee. for me, just understanding a couple of things. given that the budget and a less rigid budget analysts -- given that the budget analyst chose to relocate the cme to that location and that we have accreditation that is a longstanding issue, perhaps having to move tenants from hall of justice, knowing that the contractual rights will expire

on september 1, when we go on recess in the month of august, i would be interested in moving this forward to act on it. colleagues? supervisor kim has made a motion to move it forward without recommendation. thoughts? supervisor mirkarimi: i am on the line on this. i am looking at the request be submitted to one-and-a-half years ago. i have to say that i am fixated on this idea that when we had that major setback with our crime lab, the national academy of sciences had, i thought, a very helpful guide before us. i thought that that would give us a new lease on looking forward to how san francisco can

even sell its police forensics lab -- evince its police forensics lab. something that the met -- national academy of sciences is trying to abide by, you are making this move, which i think would have been, in terms of the capital infrastructure, moving to a whole new facility would have been a perfect opportunity to move the crime lab. i am torn, because i absolutely see the need for this to happen, given the dilapidated state of the hall of justice and everything that is occurring. that made itself evident. but to do this right, i think we could have seized upon the opportunity to do something more brand. i will go ahead and move this with the recommendation and

reservation. supervisor chu: we do have the motion to send it forward with a recommendation. i would imagine that the department can follow up with the supervisor to provide information on that relevant point, how we colocate facilities or integrate them. i would hope that that conversation would happen between the department and the supervisor's office. we have the recommendation to put that forward to the full board without objection. next item, please. >> item #3. resolution approving the fourth amendment to the agreement with serco, inc. to replace, upgrade and add parking meters; conduct an education campaign and expand the pilot testing of new residential parking management strategies in support of the sfpark pilot project, and to increase the contract not-to- exceed amount by $22,000,000 utilizing a loan from the metropolitan transportation commission for a total not-to- exceed amount of $44,080,000.

supervisor chu: thank you very much. >> good morning, supervisors. i am relieved to be before you on this first non-controversial mca contract in a long time. as you know, we have been working very hard at implementing the programs are in august of 2011. also in supporting the program they have given us a $22 million loan to expand the project. what is before you is an amendment to the contract that allows us to spend the loan, providing infrastructure for the project. seeking your approval on the

proposed recommendations, i am happy to answer any questions you might have. supervisor chu: thank you very much. >> madam chairman, on the committee -- madam chairman, members of the committee, the first payment repayment of this loan has been made. we recommend that you approve this resolution. supervisor chu: thank you. let's go to public comment. are there any members of the public that wish to speak? seeing no one, public comment is closed. colleagues? supervisor mirkarimi: motion to send forward with recommendations. >> without objection. supervisor chu: before we call item no. 4, i meant to think of -- thank mr. young.

your work yesterday on the budget, you were very important in making sure that everything was in place. i wanted to thank you in front of the committee. thank you. [applause] >> item four. item 4. resolution approving the first amendment to contract no. cs - 159 between the san francisco municipal transportation agency and the transbay joint powers authority for transbay transit center program services pursuant to charter section 9.118 in an amount not to exceed $3,280,677. supervisor chu: thank you. for this item, we have joy hoolihan from the mta. >> good afternoon, president, supervisors. for this amendment, basically, we are asking for an additional

$997,000 for services over the course of the next five years. extending the contract for an additional 11.5 months over the regional contract amount. basically, it is for traffic calming, bus services, to keep the buses on schedule and on time, and we have already provided the services for the beginning of august of last year. we anticipate the amount of $189,000. if you have any other questions, please let me know. supervisor chu: thank you. i do have some questions, but i will reserve them until after the budget analysts report. >> the amount referenced is and the number that sfmta was provided in services and then would be reimbursed by the joint

powers authority. we recommend you recommend the resolution to fund retroactivity since august 9, since services have begun, and that you approve the resolution as amended. supervisor chu: thank you. with regard to the contract recommendation, i am generally in agreement. i do have a question about management and how and howpco's. the idea would be that we distribute -- particularly related to this transbay project. on the west side, we have traditionally had questions about how dpt cpo's are allocated. we have never really gotten a good response about how it is we and effectively distribute folks

across the city. can you tell me a little bit about that and how we would be able to maintain the needs and other parts of the city while we distributing some of the sources to the tjpa request? >> in the case of the tjpa, this is on overtime sign up. so we are not using the regular resources. it is on a sign that basis. as far as daily resources, we currently have a limited number, so we allocate resources across residential parking permit areas and then general enforcement across the downtown corridor. metering enforcements, a special detail going around doing sidewalk enforcement. we spread the resources we currently have across the city seven days a week, 24/7.

we have some hiring plans going on right now also for a small number of resources while we are looking at how sfpark and some of that realignment of how we are managing the parking resources the facts and impacts our resources as well. supervisor chu: in the management of pco's, where people are allocated, where have you seen the biggest challenges in your operations? i think one of the things we ever before, at least from the residential component, is people may call in and say i have a blocked driveways or something. but they may not see a pco come out for a while. >> it depends on where the call is coming from. depending on where we dispatch from, we can get there pretty quickly, 10, 15 minutes. but if they are calling from the outer sunset, sometimes it takes

us 30, 45 minutes to transport. it depends where they are in the city and the time of the day. we have a small group of about 68 resources that just handle small claims called. it may take them a while to get to where the complaint is coming in. supervisor chu: is it typical to see a dispatch not go up to the sunset until 45 minutes? >> it is not typical but it is a time when the we have in our plans. supervisor chu: is that because the typical stocassignment as fr away from the sunset? >> we tried to get a closer resource, if we can. but with the complaint detail, if they are already on a call, they have to stay there and wait. if they are going to do a tow,

they have to wait until that tow truck comes. if i do not have other resources to send, it could be a while. supervisor chu: how are those folks sent out? >> they are assigned to sectors. supervisor chu: are those sectors equally resourceful, in terms of pco's? >> yes, one per sector. supervisor chu: i think that is a bit removed from this item before us. i think we had long been asking about how did is we can make the dpt pco distribution a bit more responsive to neighborhood issues and we are not quite there yet. i would really like to reinvigorate that conversation with you and the mta, as we go forward. >> certainly, my pleasure. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. have we taken public comment on

this item? >> you made the request i did not see anyone come forward. supervisor chu: just to be conservative, is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues? we have a motion to send the item forward with recommendations. i would definitely be comfortable with that, but i think we need to have a further despite -- conversation on pco distribution. >> madam chair, did you want this to allow to the retroactivity? supervisor chu: yes. we have an amendment according to the budget analyst's recommendations. recommendation will be to send the item to the full board with recommendations. thank you. next item please. >> item 5. resolution authorizing the san francisco municipal transportation agency to amend an expenditure contract with cypress security, llc, to add an additional $18.7 million to

continue security services for an additional three years. supervisor chu: thank you very much. on this item we also have ms. hoolihan from the mta. >> good morning again. this is a three-year extension of the existing contract we have with cypress security. basically, under our first three years, our total expenditure was $14.3 million. under the extension of the three years, this includes an 88 cent per year cost of living increase. the total rebuy amount of the contract is $32.9 million. this is including additional

services, which is video data assistance, which helps us poll video the after hours when there is a crime-sensitive case with sfpd, allows us to that mobile tunnel patrols, additional security staffing at mme. when we initiated this contract, that facility was not fully staffed and occupied. if you have any other questions, i am available to answer them. supervisor chu: why don't we go to the budget analyst's report. >> based on the projected actual contract expenditures, as well as the budget for the three-year extension, the proposed authorized need, we estimated to be about $1.6 million less than the requested.

therefore, we recommend you amend this resolution to reduce the requested a total not to exceed contract amount of $34,000,500, to a total not to exceed contract amount of $32,900,000. we recommend that you approve the resolution. supervisor chu: is this a reduction that you are in agreement with? >> yes, ma'am. supervisor chu: thank you. is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? item 5. >> good morning. you are a city that will fight for it. you are a budget that will fight for your city you are the hero we have been dreaming of you will live for ever knowing together this budget is the one that we did

for the city that you love. supervisor chu: thank you. are there any other members of the public that wish to speak on item 5? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, can we take a motion to amend the not to exceed contract amount lower by $1.6 million and move the item forward to the full board? ok, a motion to that effect. we can do that without objection. item six. >> item 6. resolution approving an amendment to the contract between the treasure island development authority and amec geomatrix, inc., to retroactively extend the term through june 30, 2012. supervisor chu: thank you. we have kelly from the office of economic and workforce development. >> good morning. my name is kelly and i member presenting the office of